RedStateDem
About the Author
Only hope for Republicans in the general election = Obama!
Page 1 of 2
| Next
I just found something that supported some of my earlier claims linking failed UHC in the early 90's. Of course he doesn't go back that far to explain some of the causes.
For those that argue that Hillary isn't a progressive, you decide!
07/31/2006
GETTING MOVING ON HEALTHCARE
Boston Globe
July 31, 2006
By John Kerry
US Senator John F. Kerry is a Democrat from Massachusetts.
PEOPLE SAY nothing is happening in Washington on healthcare. They say the only thing that has happened is that the crisis has gotten worse. They're right.
But while Washington waits, Wall Street has acted. Too many big businesses are deciding that to compete and win in the global economy, many jobs no longer will come with healthcare.
While companies such as General Motors struggle under enormous healthcare obligations, companies such as Wal-Mart are opting out of employers' traditional healthcare responsibilities. Wal-Mart currently insures fewer than half of its employees that's 800,000 workers left outside the system, some turning to Medicaid just to get healthcare at all. It's not right, but it shouldn't be a surprise. Good corporate citizens are coping with a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. GM pays $1,500 in healthcare costs on every vehicle it manufactures. Toyota pays only $200.
We're stuck with a 20th-century healthcare system that just doesn't work for a 21st-century economy.
The traditional employer-based healthcare system can no longer meet all our needs. Costs are too high, and businesses overseas are operating on a whole different playing field.
Healthcare for a family of four now costs more than a minimum- wage worker earns in a year. Certainly, things have gotten worse. Under this administration's watch, the number of uninsured Americans has grown by 6 million and premiums are up a whopping 73 percent.
This affects all of us. It matters if the kid down the block isn't immunized. It matters to your tax burden when simple, treatable illnesses turn into expensive emergency room visits often the only option for those without insurance. And it matters if we care about our moral obligation to others.
We need to cut healthcare costs. And we need a healthcare system that ensures quality, affordable healthcare for every American man, woman, and child.
We need big ideas and bold solutions, not more of timid Washington tinkering around the edges. If Americans can discover cures for the most devastating illnesses, we can surely find a way to make sure that all Americans benefit from those cures.
Right now the most expensive 0.4 percent of insurance claims account for 20 percent of all healthcare costs. We need to lower costs to businesses with a new federal reinsurance plan for catastrophic care those with the most serious, and expensive, illnesses. Reinsurance is a simple concept: It's insurance for insurers; a way for health plans to manage their risks and lower your costs.
Second, no child in America should lack health insurance. Leaving 11 million American children uninsured is wrong and, from the administration that brought us "No Child Left Behind," it is breathtakingly hypocritical.
Most single moms raising two kids on $36,000 a year don't qualify for any help. My Kids First plan would change that, covering all children up to three times the poverty level.
Finally, it is untenable for 35 million adults to go without insurance. We need to use every weapon in our arsenal until everyone is covered, including making the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program affordable and accessible for everyone in America with targeted tax credits for small businesses, middle-class families, and people between jobs. Members of Congress give themselves great healthcare and give taxpayers the bill if it's good enough for senators and congressmen, it should be good enough for every American who wants to choose it.
Doctors follow the motto "First do no harm." So should Washington. We don't want to reinvent the wheel on healthcare; we need to take what's already working for those of us who are lucky and make it work for the millions of Americans being passed by. And we need to improve quality and lower costs for those with coverage today.
All of this and more could be paid for by simply repealing President Bush's cripplingly expensive tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 a year.
Americans have a choice. If Congress won't fix healthcare, then Americans will fix Congress.
It's time for Washington to act to free Americans from the fear of being one healthcare bill away from financial ruin, and leave our businesses more competitive and our kids a lot healthier. It's time for a national commitment to a healthcare system that can be a reflection of our ambitions and not an accident of our history.
For those that argue that Hillary isn't a progressive, you decide!
07/31/2006
GETTING MOVING ON HEALTHCARE
Boston Globe
July 31, 2006
By John Kerry
US Senator John F. Kerry is a Democrat from Massachusetts.
PEOPLE SAY nothing is happening in Washington on healthcare. They say the only thing that has happened is that the crisis has gotten worse. They're right.
But while Washington waits, Wall Street has acted. Too many big businesses are deciding that to compete and win in the global economy, many jobs no longer will come with healthcare.
While companies such as General Motors struggle under enormous healthcare obligations, companies such as Wal-Mart are opting out of employers' traditional healthcare responsibilities. Wal-Mart currently insures fewer than half of its employees that's 800,000 workers left outside the system, some turning to Medicaid just to get healthcare at all. It's not right, but it shouldn't be a surprise. Good corporate citizens are coping with a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. GM pays $1,500 in healthcare costs on every vehicle it manufactures. Toyota pays only $200.
We're stuck with a 20th-century healthcare system that just doesn't work for a 21st-century economy.
The traditional employer-based healthcare system can no longer meet all our needs. Costs are too high, and businesses overseas are operating on a whole different playing field.
Healthcare for a family of four now costs more than a minimum- wage worker earns in a year. Certainly, things have gotten worse. Under this administration's watch, the number of uninsured Americans has grown by 6 million and premiums are up a whopping 73 percent.
This affects all of us. It matters if the kid down the block isn't immunized. It matters to your tax burden when simple, treatable illnesses turn into expensive emergency room visits often the only option for those without insurance. And it matters if we care about our moral obligation to others.
We need to cut healthcare costs. And we need a healthcare system that ensures quality, affordable healthcare for every American man, woman, and child.
We need big ideas and bold solutions, not more of timid Washington tinkering around the edges. If Americans can discover cures for the most devastating illnesses, we can surely find a way to make sure that all Americans benefit from those cures.
Right now the most expensive 0.4 percent of insurance claims account for 20 percent of all healthcare costs. We need to lower costs to businesses with a new federal reinsurance plan for catastrophic care those with the most serious, and expensive, illnesses. Reinsurance is a simple concept: It's insurance for insurers; a way for health plans to manage their risks and lower your costs.
Second, no child in America should lack health insurance. Leaving 11 million American children uninsured is wrong and, from the administration that brought us "No Child Left Behind," it is breathtakingly hypocritical.
Most single moms raising two kids on $36,000 a year don't qualify for any help. My Kids First plan would change that, covering all children up to three times the poverty level.
Finally, it is untenable for 35 million adults to go without insurance. We need to use every weapon in our arsenal until everyone is covered, including making the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program affordable and accessible for everyone in America with targeted tax credits for small businesses, middle-class families, and people between jobs. Members of Congress give themselves great healthcare and give taxpayers the bill if it's good enough for senators and congressmen, it should be good enough for every American who wants to choose it.
Doctors follow the motto "First do no harm." So should Washington. We don't want to reinvent the wheel on healthcare; we need to take what's already working for those of us who are lucky and make it work for the millions of Americans being passed by. And we need to improve quality and lower costs for those with coverage today.
All of this and more could be paid for by simply repealing President Bush's cripplingly expensive tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 a year.
Americans have a choice. If Congress won't fix healthcare, then Americans will fix Congress.
It's time for Washington to act to free Americans from the fear of being one healthcare bill away from financial ruin, and leave our businesses more competitive and our kids a lot healthier. It's time for a national commitment to a healthcare system that can be a reflection of our ambitions and not an accident of our history.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=104548&title=chris-matthews
I think everyone should switch directions tonight...
Here is something funny.
It's a switch from Matthews typical role of playing Hardball
I think everyone should switch directions tonight...
Here is something funny.
It's a switch from Matthews typical role of playing Hardball
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=104548&title=chris-matthews
I always thought Chris Matthews was an intellectual but when I saw this my opinion changed. Since then he has been a little harder to take serious.
He went on the Daily show to plug his book to the Stewart audience but I don't think the result was what he wanted.
I always thought Chris Matthews was an intellectual but when I saw this my opinion changed. Since then he has been a little harder to take serious.
He went on the Daily show to plug his book to the Stewart audience but I don't think the result was what he wanted.
Has anyone ever discussed the detrimental effects failed UHC had on our economy?
Failure to pass this then failed the People and Economy! The spineless attempts to defend this program back then have virtually cemented our good paying domestic manufacturing jobs as a thing of the past.
1. If it were passed in 1994 lets say...
2. Approximately 5 -7 years to work out kinks before Foreign manufacturers started building on our soil on a large scale.
3. Major Domestic Corporations were entering phases of massive retiree benefits.
4. When New Foreign Corps built here they would have helped subsidize existing Domestic Corporation health care.
5. Our Manufacturing Sector would have been better positioned spreading the burden of a retiring workforce. Foreign Domestic does not carry the same cost burden.
6. Would the Energy Sector of heeded the warnings of UHC?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Congress failed the American People and our Economy then. There had to be someone to blame for failed NAFTA. As I recall, Hillary was to blame for losing control in 1994. Her crazy hair-do's made her just the person. Sort of like a guy with the name of Scooter. Rightful blame is never passed appropriately.
Now our manufacturing industry is struggling to stay afloat when Honda/Toyota/Nissan/etc. etc don't carry the same cost burdens.
Each year our Domestic Suppliers to the Big Three are mandated to reduce cost by certain percentages. If they can't meet those demands the Big Three and other Major Assembly plants look else where and most often end up sourcing through Mexico or Asia. All domestic manufacturers are at a clear disadvantage.
The manufacturing industry was already at a sever disadvantage, but then came the true tipping point. HIGH ENERGY costs during this W. Administration.
The GOP's remedy to this is to have these Corporations file Bankruptcy. Big Companies dump debt domestically, while their foreign entity stays in tact.
Who do these Bankruptcies hurt?
1. The first people to see real pain is the bankrupt company’s employees with stock options. They see their stock drop to nothing.
2. Their Domestic Suppliers that have already been providing services at discount prices to compete with China and Mexico. Payment is typically extended for months with promise to pay, but then a notice of chapter 13 comes with no warning. No payment.
3. Everything prior to bankruptcy is uncollectible until the judge sets the percentage of claim to be paid. In excess of years can be taken. Everything after the Bankruptcy filing plus standard terms normally 65 -90 days is guaranteed but still have to wait for that period to receive first payment.
4. Bankrupt company’s employee's wages and benefits are re-negotiated typically at a loss to the employee.
5. Suppliers are forced to shut down, or sell their claim for percentages as low as 40% to “Capital Liquidity” Investment Companies to meet cash flow demands.
6. Bankrupt companies are often sold, and resold again dismantling it as they go. Often keeping contracts and prints but manufacturing in Mexico, Asia.
7. Upon exiting Bankruptcy, all old stock is devalued to virtually nothing leaving astronomical losses to planned retirement.
8. Wages are less and benefits lacking.
9. Much of this is again repeated over and over depending on how domestic the supplier base is and the complexity of the supplier’s product.
Has anyone ever noticed that we have lost so much in the Manufacturing sector because it is cheaper to produce elsewhere? Yet, why do prices continue to increase? Listening to anyone of notice that criticizes Hillary for NAFTA doesn’t understand the whole picture. It is much easier to blame someone than actually investigate the problem. This is exactly the reason why Scooter was set out to dry instead of those that were really responsible.
It appears that everyone, I mean EVERYONE has their price. Just expanding on my point that it is so much more than race, it is about Class! The American People have been sold out. Failure to look beyond color or gender during this election will increase the separation between classes and will effectively keep everyone in their place under the thumb of their leaders.
Failure to pass this then failed the People and Economy! The spineless attempts to defend this program back then have virtually cemented our good paying domestic manufacturing jobs as a thing of the past.
1. If it were passed in 1994 lets say...
2. Approximately 5 -7 years to work out kinks before Foreign manufacturers started building on our soil on a large scale.
3. Major Domestic Corporations were entering phases of massive retiree benefits.
4. When New Foreign Corps built here they would have helped subsidize existing Domestic Corporation health care.
5. Our Manufacturing Sector would have been better positioned spreading the burden of a retiring workforce. Foreign Domestic does not carry the same cost burden.
6. Would the Energy Sector of heeded the warnings of UHC?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Congress failed the American People and our Economy then. There had to be someone to blame for failed NAFTA. As I recall, Hillary was to blame for losing control in 1994. Her crazy hair-do's made her just the person. Sort of like a guy with the name of Scooter. Rightful blame is never passed appropriately.
Now our manufacturing industry is struggling to stay afloat when Honda/Toyota/Nissan/etc. etc don't carry the same cost burdens.
Each year our Domestic Suppliers to the Big Three are mandated to reduce cost by certain percentages. If they can't meet those demands the Big Three and other Major Assembly plants look else where and most often end up sourcing through Mexico or Asia. All domestic manufacturers are at a clear disadvantage.
The manufacturing industry was already at a sever disadvantage, but then came the true tipping point. HIGH ENERGY costs during this W. Administration.
The GOP's remedy to this is to have these Corporations file Bankruptcy. Big Companies dump debt domestically, while their foreign entity stays in tact.
Who do these Bankruptcies hurt?
1. The first people to see real pain is the bankrupt company’s employees with stock options. They see their stock drop to nothing.
2. Their Domestic Suppliers that have already been providing services at discount prices to compete with China and Mexico. Payment is typically extended for months with promise to pay, but then a notice of chapter 13 comes with no warning. No payment.
3. Everything prior to bankruptcy is uncollectible until the judge sets the percentage of claim to be paid. In excess of years can be taken. Everything after the Bankruptcy filing plus standard terms normally 65 -90 days is guaranteed but still have to wait for that period to receive first payment.
4. Bankrupt company’s employee's wages and benefits are re-negotiated typically at a loss to the employee.
5. Suppliers are forced to shut down, or sell their claim for percentages as low as 40% to “Capital Liquidity” Investment Companies to meet cash flow demands.
6. Bankrupt companies are often sold, and resold again dismantling it as they go. Often keeping contracts and prints but manufacturing in Mexico, Asia.
7. Upon exiting Bankruptcy, all old stock is devalued to virtually nothing leaving astronomical losses to planned retirement.
8. Wages are less and benefits lacking.
9. Much of this is again repeated over and over depending on how domestic the supplier base is and the complexity of the supplier’s product.
Has anyone ever noticed that we have lost so much in the Manufacturing sector because it is cheaper to produce elsewhere? Yet, why do prices continue to increase? Listening to anyone of notice that criticizes Hillary for NAFTA doesn’t understand the whole picture. It is much easier to blame someone than actually investigate the problem. This is exactly the reason why Scooter was set out to dry instead of those that were really responsible.
It appears that everyone, I mean EVERYONE has their price. Just expanding on my point that it is so much more than race, it is about Class! The American People have been sold out. Failure to look beyond color or gender during this election will increase the separation between classes and will effectively keep everyone in their place under the thumb of their leaders.
Watching TV I just saw his new add played on ESPN.
Saying he doesn't take lobbyist and special interest money.
Obama Supporters Please Defend! PLEASE!
This is during this Primary season.
1: Public Citizen: 10 of Sen. Obama's bundlers have been federal lobbyists. The Public Citizen report listed the following ten bundlers for Sen. Obama who have registered as federal lobbyists: Frank Clark, Commonwealth Edison; Scott Harris, Harris Wiltshire and Grannis; Allan J. Katz, Akerman Senterfitt; Robert S. Litt, Arnold & Porter; Thomas J. Perrelli, Jenner and Block; Thomas A. Reed, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP; Paul N. Roth, Schulte Roth & Zabel; Miriam Sapiro, Summit Strategies; Alan Solomont, Solomont Bailis Ventures; and Tom E. Wheeler, Core Capital Partners. [Public Citizen, 1/29/08]
2.) Sen. Obama takes money from employees of firms that lobby and has lobbyists as advisers. "But those who lobby for a living say it's not that simple, and even Obama's stance shows some flexibility. He won't take money from federal lobbyists but accepts money from employees of firms and corporations that lobby, and he uses lobbyists and other government relations professionals as advisers... Obama has also used major fundraisers who are registered lobbyists on the state level. And he uses registered federal lobbyists such as Broderick Johnson, who lobbies for AT&T and Shell Oil, among others, as a campaign adviser. Because Johnson isn't giving money to Obama, his name won't show up in Federal Election Commission records." [Chicago Tribune, 2/10/08]
3. Bloomberg: Five of [Obama’s] ten biggest sources of funds are groups of employees at law firms that lobby in Washington. "While Obama doesn't accept money from registered federal lobbyists, five of his 10 biggest sources of funds are groups of employees at law firms that lobby in Washington…Among Obama's top donors were employees of the Chicago-based law firm of Sidley Austin LLP, who gave $105,750 in the first quarter. The firm was paid $4.5 million last year" for lobbying the federal government. [Bloomberg, 6/7/07]
4. Obama's presidential campaign has received $2,812,336 from firms that employ registered federal lobbyists. [fec.gov]
Obama has taken $405,747 from the Pharmaceutical industry. [opensecrets.org]
Obama has received $1,185,937 from the Commercial Banking industry. [opensecrets.org]
Obama has received over six million dollars from the Securities & Investment industry. [opensecrets.org]
Obama has taken $608,822 from the Insurance industry. [opensecrets.org]
Obama has taken $168,584 from the Mortgage Banking industry. [opensecrets.org]
Saying he doesn't take lobbyist and special interest money.
Obama Supporters Please Defend! PLEASE!
This is during this Primary season.
1: Public Citizen: 10 of Sen. Obama's bundlers have been federal lobbyists. The Public Citizen report listed the following ten bundlers for Sen. Obama who have registered as federal lobbyists: Frank Clark, Commonwealth Edison; Scott Harris, Harris Wiltshire and Grannis; Allan J. Katz, Akerman Senterfitt; Robert S. Litt, Arnold & Porter; Thomas J. Perrelli, Jenner and Block; Thomas A. Reed, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP; Paul N. Roth, Schulte Roth & Zabel; Miriam Sapiro, Summit Strategies; Alan Solomont, Solomont Bailis Ventures; and Tom E. Wheeler, Core Capital Partners. [Public Citizen, 1/29/08]
2.) Sen. Obama takes money from employees of firms that lobby and has lobbyists as advisers. "But those who lobby for a living say it's not that simple, and even Obama's stance shows some flexibility. He won't take money from federal lobbyists but accepts money from employees of firms and corporations that lobby, and he uses lobbyists and other government relations professionals as advisers... Obama has also used major fundraisers who are registered lobbyists on the state level. And he uses registered federal lobbyists such as Broderick Johnson, who lobbies for AT&T and Shell Oil, among others, as a campaign adviser. Because Johnson isn't giving money to Obama, his name won't show up in Federal Election Commission records." [Chicago Tribune, 2/10/08]
3. Bloomberg: Five of [Obama’s] ten biggest sources of funds are groups of employees at law firms that lobby in Washington. "While Obama doesn't accept money from registered federal lobbyists, five of his 10 biggest sources of funds are groups of employees at law firms that lobby in Washington…Among Obama's top donors were employees of the Chicago-based law firm of Sidley Austin LLP, who gave $105,750 in the first quarter. The firm was paid $4.5 million last year" for lobbying the federal government. [Bloomberg, 6/7/07]
4. Obama's presidential campaign has received $2,812,336 from firms that employ registered federal lobbyists. [fec.gov]
Obama has taken $405,747 from the Pharmaceutical industry. [opensecrets.org]
Obama has received $1,185,937 from the Commercial Banking industry. [opensecrets.org]
Obama has received over six million dollars from the Securities & Investment industry. [opensecrets.org]
Obama has taken $608,822 from the Insurance industry. [opensecrets.org]
Obama has taken $168,584 from the Mortgage Banking industry. [opensecrets.org]
Check out this link.
http://www.attacktimeline.com/
Here you can see the how the invisible kitchen utensils, appliances, furniture, and fixtures have been thrown.
After I fabricated my first resume and landed my first Upper Management position it didn't take long to start handing out the "Golden Tissue Award" to the whiners in our organization.
Seems like I may have to start spray painting a zillion boxes of kleenex for half of the Democratic Party if Obama wins. Especially if they think they have been victim of negative campaigning.
The GOP isn't going to play fair, and they certainly won't be nice.
When you fart do you admit it, or walk away and blame it on someone else?
http://www.attacktimeline.com/
Here you can see the how the invisible kitchen utensils, appliances, furniture, and fixtures have been thrown.
After I fabricated my first resume and landed my first Upper Management position it didn't take long to start handing out the "Golden Tissue Award" to the whiners in our organization.
Seems like I may have to start spray painting a zillion boxes of kleenex for half of the Democratic Party if Obama wins. Especially if they think they have been victim of negative campaigning.
The GOP isn't going to play fair, and they certainly won't be nice.
When you fart do you admit it, or walk away and blame it on someone else?
Your argument is misguided....
You fail to understand the ramifications from a failed Universal Health Care System that didn't get adopted.
This was to come first. Due to Party infighting and lack of spine by our good Senators and House members she was blamed for losing control of Congress. Instead of standing up and fighting for this then NAFTA suffers now.
Why do people keep bringing up uninformed arguments to make a point?
Sure they both are guilty of misspeaking. Yes even the Great Obama.
Much of the Countries economics have long been shouldered by the manufacturing industry. The age of these longstanding corps have entered the phases of mass retiree benefits with costs rising astronomically. Had Universal Health Care been adopted in the early 1990's our older good paying manufacturing jobs would have been able to compete with the foreign automarket that is now building here. We would have a good 7 years to work out the kinks in UHC that would have been payed for by in part from Toyota/Nissan/Honda/etc.
Toyota/Nissan/Honda etc. are young american manufacturing facilities and are non-union 401k plans which won't have the burdens our Domestic Manufacturers have for 30 years. So failure to help the American Citizen with UHC we also failed our economy. We have effectively orchestrated our own demise.
Each year the Big Three (GM/Chrysler/Ford) mandate to suppliers that they must reduce pricing by a certain percentage. If these costs can't be met, then they look to Mexico or Asia. The Big Three contributed to a large percentage of Middle Class lives across the nation. Obviously there is a great deal of waste at the corporate levels, but if you walk through a GM plant and then walk through a Toyota plant you will see that every little savings our Big 3 can get they need.
To blame Bill and Hillary for that is wrong in all fashions. It was bad Congressional Leadership and equally as bad our dumb society.
Think this through from start to finish before you jump on a topic.
You fail to understand the ramifications from a failed Universal Health Care System that didn't get adopted.
This was to come first. Due to Party infighting and lack of spine by our good Senators and House members she was blamed for losing control of Congress. Instead of standing up and fighting for this then NAFTA suffers now.
Why do people keep bringing up uninformed arguments to make a point?
Sure they both are guilty of misspeaking. Yes even the Great Obama.
Much of the Countries economics have long been shouldered by the manufacturing industry. The age of these longstanding corps have entered the phases of mass retiree benefits with costs rising astronomically. Had Universal Health Care been adopted in the early 1990's our older good paying manufacturing jobs would have been able to compete with the foreign automarket that is now building here. We would have a good 7 years to work out the kinks in UHC that would have been payed for by in part from Toyota/Nissan/Honda/etc.
Toyota/Nissan/Honda etc. are young american manufacturing facilities and are non-union 401k plans which won't have the burdens our Domestic Manufacturers have for 30 years. So failure to help the American Citizen with UHC we also failed our economy. We have effectively orchestrated our own demise.
Each year the Big Three (GM/Chrysler/Ford) mandate to suppliers that they must reduce pricing by a certain percentage. If these costs can't be met, then they look to Mexico or Asia. The Big Three contributed to a large percentage of Middle Class lives across the nation. Obviously there is a great deal of waste at the corporate levels, but if you walk through a GM plant and then walk through a Toyota plant you will see that every little savings our Big 3 can get they need.
To blame Bill and Hillary for that is wrong in all fashions. It was bad Congressional Leadership and equally as bad our dumb society.
Think this through from start to finish before you jump on a topic.
I have heard so many arguments from Obama supporters quoting Rush and other Right Loonies.
I just have to know, did you listen to Rush and vote Bush in 00, and 04 due to his high moral fortitude? Because he said he was a "uniter of peoples", or because you culd durink a ber wit heeem?
I would just like to know how many other Rush sentiments you agree with? You don't cherry pick what you want from him to help further your point do you?
It has to be more than just Hillary Bashing right?
Maybe you did vote for Gore over Bush? If so why would you choose Gore over Bush?
Really people, use your freekin brains and quit acting like Rush Clones. To use his arguments proves your succeptability to mass manipulation.
The main reason no one on either side in Politics wants Hillary is because of the work-load. Instead of coasting both sides will have to work their asses off. The Republicans will fight, our Democratic Congressional Seat Holders would rather sit back and complain than fight back.
I just have to know, did you listen to Rush and vote Bush in 00, and 04 due to his high moral fortitude? Because he said he was a "uniter of peoples", or because you culd durink a ber wit heeem?
I would just like to know how many other Rush sentiments you agree with? You don't cherry pick what you want from him to help further your point do you?
It has to be more than just Hillary Bashing right?
Maybe you did vote for Gore over Bush? If so why would you choose Gore over Bush?
Really people, use your freekin brains and quit acting like Rush Clones. To use his arguments proves your succeptability to mass manipulation.
The main reason no one on either side in Politics wants Hillary is because of the work-load. Instead of coasting both sides will have to work their asses off. The Republicans will fight, our Democratic Congressional Seat Holders would rather sit back and complain than fight back.
Funny, Obama supporters thinking that somehow alienating Florida and Michigan will not affect a General Election Run.
For better or worse Obama knows he won't win the GE with this position. That doesn't matter. Just keep Hillary away. God forbid the Senators and House members have to get out and do some real work fighting for a cause.
Campaigning is fun, a nice break from reality. Why not spend the time doing that helping someone get in that won't stir things up or worse won't even get elected. It is much easier for Congress to sit back and complain than stand up and fight for causes like UHC.
For better or worse Obama knows he won't win the GE with this position. That doesn't matter. Just keep Hillary away. God forbid the Senators and House members have to get out and do some real work fighting for a cause.
Campaigning is fun, a nice break from reality. Why not spend the time doing that helping someone get in that won't stir things up or worse won't even get elected. It is much easier for Congress to sit back and complain than stand up and fight for causes like UHC.
An Executive Prospective:
From Upper Management down:
1. Most organizational workforces have few that are dedicated and truly experienced of overall operations.
2. Most organizational workforces have many that perform the routine averagely.
3. Most organizational workforces have some that perform the routine below ability but just enough to get by.
4. Most organizational workforces have few that are new and show promise but still unproven.
5. Most organizational workforces have some that you know won't cut it immediately.
As an Executive, the position selection depends on the jobs responsibilities and qualification requirements. Obviously the first preference is to choose a candidate from within the organization. If the position requires a great amount of responsibility and professional experience such as Controller, Operation Manager, or even a front line supervisor, those from above #1 are considered. I no longer consider those from #4 above for any of these positions - my experience has been that for every 10 I did promote, I lost 9 potential #2s for unknown years and gained a #3 manager. Therefore, if I do not find a prospect in my #1s then unfortunately I have to seek outside the organization. This isn't what I call ideal but a necessity for the continued longevity of the organization.
I may be wrong, but I get the impression that most of our Government in addition to our society in general is full of #2s and #3s. Government can be compared to business in so many ways, and a bad government isn't any worse than a decent company in its structure. This is not good for the American Citizen. The unfortunate thing is that most #2s and #3 hold the majority and would rather work for a number #4 than work for#1 or someone outside. #2s and #3s often take advantage of the situation and try to influence the #4 towards their positions and views often to the detriment of the organization regardless of how small or big it may be. (Much like W.)
See how efficient choosing #4 is. It isn't acceptable to hope that they become#2 in time and that is what it takes. There is a learning curve. The learning curve would be fine if I could baby-sit and hold his/her hand. Unfortunately, I feel that Michelle won't be as much help to Obama as what Bill will be to Hillary during the transition and first few months.
From Upper Management down:
1. Most organizational workforces have few that are dedicated and truly experienced of overall operations.
2. Most organizational workforces have many that perform the routine averagely.
3. Most organizational workforces have some that perform the routine below ability but just enough to get by.
4. Most organizational workforces have few that are new and show promise but still unproven.
5. Most organizational workforces have some that you know won't cut it immediately.
As an Executive, the position selection depends on the jobs responsibilities and qualification requirements. Obviously the first preference is to choose a candidate from within the organization. If the position requires a great amount of responsibility and professional experience such as Controller, Operation Manager, or even a front line supervisor, those from above #1 are considered. I no longer consider those from #4 above for any of these positions - my experience has been that for every 10 I did promote, I lost 9 potential #2s for unknown years and gained a #3 manager. Therefore, if I do not find a prospect in my #1s then unfortunately I have to seek outside the organization. This isn't what I call ideal but a necessity for the continued longevity of the organization.
I may be wrong, but I get the impression that most of our Government in addition to our society in general is full of #2s and #3s. Government can be compared to business in so many ways, and a bad government isn't any worse than a decent company in its structure. This is not good for the American Citizen. The unfortunate thing is that most #2s and #3 hold the majority and would rather work for a number #4 than work for#1 or someone outside. #2s and #3s often take advantage of the situation and try to influence the #4 towards their positions and views often to the detriment of the organization regardless of how small or big it may be. (Much like W.)
See how efficient choosing #4 is. It isn't acceptable to hope that they become#2 in time and that is what it takes. There is a learning curve. The learning curve would be fine if I could baby-sit and hold his/her hand. Unfortunately, I feel that Michelle won't be as much help to Obama as what Bill will be to Hillary during the transition and first few months.
An Executive Prospective:
From Upper Management down:
1. Most organizational workforces have few that are dedicated and truly experienced of overall operations.
2. Most organizational workforces have many that perform the routine averagely.
3. Most organizational workforces have some that perform the routine below ability but just enough to get by.
4. Most organizational workforces have few that are new and show promise but still unproven.
5. Most organizational workforces have some that you know won't cut it immediately.
As an Executive, the position selection depends on the jobs responsibilities and qualification requirements. Obviously the first preference is to choose a candidate from within the organization. If the position requires a great amount of responsibility and professional experience such as Controller, Operation Manager, or even a front line supervisor, those from above #1 are considered. I no longer consider those from #4 above for any of these positions - my experience has been that for every 10 I did promote, I lost 9 potential #2s for unknown years and gained a #3 manager. Therefore, if I do not find a prospect in my #1s then unfortunately I have to seek outside the organization. This isn't what I call ideal but a necessity for the continued longevity of the organization.
I may be wrong, but I get the impression that most of our Government in addition to our society in general is full of #2s and #3s. Government can be compared to business in so many ways, and a bad government isn't any worse than a decent company in its structure. This is not good for the American Citizen. The unfortunate thing is that most #2s and #3 hold the majority and would rather work for a number #4 than work for#1 or someone outside. #2s and #3s often take advantage of the situation and try to influence the #4 towards their positions and views often to the detriment of the organization regardless of how small or big it may be. (Much like W.)
See how efficient choosing #4 is. It isn't acceptable to hope that they become#2 in time and that is what it takes. There is a learning curve. The learning curve would be fine if I could baby-sit and hold his/her hand. Unfortunately, I feel that Michelle won't be as much help to Obama as what Bill will be to Hillary during the transition and first few months.
From Upper Management down:
1. Most organizational workforces have few that are dedicated and truly experienced of overall operations.
2. Most organizational workforces have many that perform the routine averagely.
3. Most organizational workforces have some that perform the routine below ability but just enough to get by.
4. Most organizational workforces have few that are new and show promise but still unproven.
5. Most organizational workforces have some that you know won't cut it immediately.
As an Executive, the position selection depends on the jobs responsibilities and qualification requirements. Obviously the first preference is to choose a candidate from within the organization. If the position requires a great amount of responsibility and professional experience such as Controller, Operation Manager, or even a front line supervisor, those from above #1 are considered. I no longer consider those from #4 above for any of these positions - my experience has been that for every 10 I did promote, I lost 9 potential #2s for unknown years and gained a #3 manager. Therefore, if I do not find a prospect in my #1s then unfortunately I have to seek outside the organization. This isn't what I call ideal but a necessity for the continued longevity of the organization.
I may be wrong, but I get the impression that most of our Government in addition to our society in general is full of #2s and #3s. Government can be compared to business in so many ways, and a bad government isn't any worse than a decent company in its structure. This is not good for the American Citizen. The unfortunate thing is that most #2s and #3 hold the majority and would rather work for a number #4 than work for#1 or someone outside. #2s and #3s often take advantage of the situation and try to influence the #4 towards their positions and views often to the detriment of the organization regardless of how small or big it may be. (Much like W.)
See how efficient choosing #4 is. It isn't acceptable to hope that they become#2 in time and that is what it takes. There is a learning curve. The learning curve would be fine if I could baby-sit and hold his/her hand. Unfortunately, I feel that Michelle won't be as much help to Obama as what Bill will be to Hillary during the transition and first few months.
Yes, I am hopeful of Universal Health Care.
Yes, I understand that overall healthcare costs can't come down unless all are mandated because bottom dollar pricing cannot be established without guaranteed volume. Just as Chrysler, Ford, GM, mandate suppliers to reduce their cost and pricing by certain percentages each year. (Despite cost inflation of energy, healthcare, etc.)
Yes, I understand that our manufacturing industry would have been much more competitive if Universal Health Care would have been passed in the early 1990s and had 10 years to work out kinks.
Yes, I understand that automotive manufacturers have endured many hardships due to retiree rates and benefits that foreign and domestic-foreign manufacturers don't have to deal with because of non-union 401k plans.
Ask yourself, why did the Democratic Party back away from Universal Health Care in the early 90s? Why did Hillary get the blame for losing Congress in 1994? The answer: The Democratic Parties lack of spine and/or comfort of self-preservation throughout the House and Congress.
Wouldn't Universal Health Care be worthy for your Democratic Senate and House leaders to fight for, or at the very, very least defend? Answer: And jeopardize campaign contributions across the country.
Where is Edwards now?
I honestly believe that so many Democratic Senators and House members are fearful of another Clinton Administration because they know they will have to get out and work. They will have to get out and sell the programs/agenda to the people instead of sitting comfortably within their offices not jeopardizing their seats. Senators and House members are no different than the typical Americans filling repetitive jobs and their title doesn't prove they have solid work-ethic. It doesn't prove that they don't get comfortable and do just enough to maintain elect ability. Especially those sitting in long uncontested seats. (Reason why both parties oppose Clinton and why Edward's didn't catch on)
Did you vote Gore over Bush? Why?
People! I want a President that gets into office and gets their (Congress/House) asses to work! I don't want a President that gets into office and takes the high road and avoids conflict. I want the President to be respected not for friendship and likeability values but for work ethic. I want a President to drive the workforce (Congress) towards meeting goals. The President establishes the mission statement and it is up to the subordinates (Congress & Staff) to carry that plan out. Don't blame the President; blame those in Congress that are in control for failing to negotiate or sell agenda’s appropriately.
I don't want someone to say "You’re doing a heck of a job there Brownie", when that person should have been bounced out of his position on his ass because of incompetence. Then W himself should have been bounced out for appointing his dumb under-qualified ass to that position.
In my opinion, you pick a #4 over a #1 then you prefer luck over logic. It doesn't matter if the candidate is a bumbling idiot or inspirational speaker. Everyone that has created a resume has exagerrated points, but it isn't disputable that she has a better understanding of the overall branch/program/ etc. finer details than both McCain and Obama.
Whether she played an active role or not doesn't matter, she is intelligent and had a front row seat for 8 years as gov. In addition, and most importantly has someone for better or worse that has previously performed that position for 8 years. Another personal opinion is that when it comes to gender women are much more focused and dedicated to their given professions than men. I also find that they have much greater attention to detail.
Yes, I understand that overall healthcare costs can't come down unless all are mandated because bottom dollar pricing cannot be established without guaranteed volume. Just as Chrysler, Ford, GM, mandate suppliers to reduce their cost and pricing by certain percentages each year. (Despite cost inflation of energy, healthcare, etc.)
Yes, I understand that our manufacturing industry would have been much more competitive if Universal Health Care would have been passed in the early 1990s and had 10 years to work out kinks.
Yes, I understand that automotive manufacturers have endured many hardships due to retiree rates and benefits that foreign and domestic-foreign manufacturers don't have to deal with because of non-union 401k plans.
Ask yourself, why did the Democratic Party back away from Universal Health Care in the early 90s? Why did Hillary get the blame for losing Congress in 1994? The answer: The Democratic Parties lack of spine and/or comfort of self-preservation throughout the House and Congress.
Wouldn't Universal Health Care be worthy for your Democratic Senate and House leaders to fight for, or at the very, very least defend? Answer: And jeopardize campaign contributions across the country.
Where is Edwards now?
I honestly believe that so many Democratic Senators and House members are fearful of another Clinton Administration because they know they will have to get out and work. They will have to get out and sell the programs/agenda to the people instead of sitting comfortably within their offices not jeopardizing their seats. Senators and House members are no different than the typical Americans filling repetitive jobs and their title doesn't prove they have solid work-ethic. It doesn't prove that they don't get comfortable and do just enough to maintain elect ability. Especially those sitting in long uncontested seats. (Reason why both parties oppose Clinton and why Edward's didn't catch on)
Did you vote Gore over Bush? Why?
People! I want a President that gets into office and gets their (Congress/House) asses to work! I don't want a President that gets into office and takes the high road and avoids conflict. I want the President to be respected not for friendship and likeability values but for work ethic. I want a President to drive the workforce (Congress) towards meeting goals. The President establishes the mission statement and it is up to the subordinates (Congress & Staff) to carry that plan out. Don't blame the President; blame those in Congress that are in control for failing to negotiate or sell agenda’s appropriately.
I don't want someone to say "You’re doing a heck of a job there Brownie", when that person should have been bounced out of his position on his ass because of incompetence. Then W himself should have been bounced out for appointing his dumb under-qualified ass to that position.
In my opinion, you pick a #4 over a #1 then you prefer luck over logic. It doesn't matter if the candidate is a bumbling idiot or inspirational speaker. Everyone that has created a resume has exagerrated points, but it isn't disputable that she has a better understanding of the overall branch/program/ etc. finer details than both McCain and Obama.
Whether she played an active role or not doesn't matter, she is intelligent and had a front row seat for 8 years as gov. In addition, and most importantly has someone for better or worse that has previously performed that position for 8 years. Another personal opinion is that when it comes to gender women are much more focused and dedicated to their given professions than men. I also find that they have much greater attention to detail.
It is so unfortunate that we as Democrats have found ourselves in identical position to the 2000 General Election. Just like in 2000, but instead of traditional Dems vs. GOP it is our Dems/Dems that are divided: who is most qualified versus who is more likeable. All of us saw what happened in 2000 and how it further divided the Country.
For those that truly run the Country, I would have to say I am amazed. This was set up to perfection. When the Democratic Party was just about to seize control of America’s Government and move the Country progressively to the left, a plan was orchestrated to effectively maintain the balance of parties. A divided Country is far more profitable to individuals than a unified Country is to its citizens.
Beneficial change will not come to those living in poverty regardless of the nominee. Healthcare costs, Prescription costs, and Energy costs will not be lowered considerably in our lifetime. The war may be ended or troop deployment reduced, but what will the guardsmen and troops return to. Where will they work? How many more lower class Americans will fail to reach the Middle Class? How many Middle Class Americans will be dropped down to Lower Class?
As Americans, the harder we work the better our standard of living should be. Not the opposite!
Rest assured Obama and Clinton Supporters, neither of our candidates will win the nomination. Obama will fail because McCain will split the Spanish (even with Richardson) leaving the southwest up for grabs, and lose Florida, Ohio and PA in the General Election. Hillary will lose the General Election because Nader will run. Just as he helped spoil Gore in 2000, his self serving interests will prevail and he won’t be able to avoid the spotlight again.
So fellow Democrats, I would say keep forming your opinions from editorials, from Rush, from family members, from your Religious leaders, and pray for “HOPE” and “CHANGE” to come. Don’t research anything for yourselves, don’t pick a candidate on qualifications, don’t pick a candidate because of their past or lack of, just pick them because they make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Just remember that is how W. was elected in 00 and why our Country is in such wonderful condition.
For those that truly run the Country, I would have to say I am amazed. This was set up to perfection. When the Democratic Party was just about to seize control of America’s Government and move the Country progressively to the left, a plan was orchestrated to effectively maintain the balance of parties. A divided Country is far more profitable to individuals than a unified Country is to its citizens.
Beneficial change will not come to those living in poverty regardless of the nominee. Healthcare costs, Prescription costs, and Energy costs will not be lowered considerably in our lifetime. The war may be ended or troop deployment reduced, but what will the guardsmen and troops return to. Where will they work? How many more lower class Americans will fail to reach the Middle Class? How many Middle Class Americans will be dropped down to Lower Class?
As Americans, the harder we work the better our standard of living should be. Not the opposite!
Rest assured Obama and Clinton Supporters, neither of our candidates will win the nomination. Obama will fail because McCain will split the Spanish (even with Richardson) leaving the southwest up for grabs, and lose Florida, Ohio and PA in the General Election. Hillary will lose the General Election because Nader will run. Just as he helped spoil Gore in 2000, his self serving interests will prevail and he won’t be able to avoid the spotlight again.
So fellow Democrats, I would say keep forming your opinions from editorials, from Rush, from family members, from your Religious leaders, and pray for “HOPE” and “CHANGE” to come. Don’t research anything for yourselves, don’t pick a candidate on qualifications, don’t pick a candidate because of their past or lack of, just pick them because they make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Just remember that is how W. was elected in 00 and why our Country is in such wonderful condition.
Wow, I would like to just say that instead of voting for Obama in these upcoming primaries his supporters should write in OPRAH!
She showed the JUDGMEMENT and COMMON SENSE to distance herself from the Good Rev. a long long time ago. She understood what this would do to her business affairs if she was found out to have a very close connection to someone with such publicly radical views. Why has nothing been mentioned about her good judgement?
Write in Oprah in the remaining 08 Primaries!
Just another SUPER example of women being underestimated today!
She showed the JUDGMEMENT and COMMON SENSE to distance herself from the Good Rev. a long long time ago. She understood what this would do to her business affairs if she was found out to have a very close connection to someone with such publicly radical views. Why has nothing been mentioned about her good judgement?
Write in Oprah in the remaining 08 Primaries!
Just another SUPER example of women being underestimated today!
My response to Mark C. Eades Post:
First Rush Limbaugh, Now Pat Buchanan: Republican Fear of Barack Obama Turns to Love of Hillary Clinton
My Response:
Oh yes, I remember when my parents tried using reverse psychology too. Try it on your kids and see if it works. My guess is yes if they are under 8 years old!
I can see that the Democratic Party is full of dip-shits in much the same way the Republican Party is.
In 00, and 04 we all saw how easily the uneducated were manipulated. Now we see it happening here within our Party.
Following based on rhetoric? By definition voting for Obama would be insanity. I would think that 00, and 04 would be such a lesson to everyone but yet people fail to learn from past mistakes. My opinion would be much different if the Country was in good standing and our Party was strong. It isn't and Party Leader Endorsements early on really helped him garner support.
Why does everyone want Obama to win? So the ball-less Democratic Leaders won't have to stand up and fight for Universal Healthcare. They don't want to jeopardize the massive amounts of money that is injected into campaigns across the Country. This goes for both Parties!
The Democratic Party needs a fighter to push a hard agenda through and Obama doesn't fit that bill. The Democratic Party needs leaders in Congress to stand up and fight. This is America and you have to fight and take what you want! You have to be resilient and focused! Just ask yourselves how much more competitive the US domestic Automotive Manufacturers would be now if Universal Healthcare would have been passed in 1993?
Don't you find it odd that the Democratic Party's Super Delegates are flocking to Obama? In all honesty, it has nothing to do with his skin color or the way he connects with crowds. IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HIS HEALTHCARE PLAN! A vote for Obama isn't a vote for CHANGE!
I would like to know where John Edward's voice is right now. Ask yourselves that question! It is amazing that he hasn't stepped up and helped explain this phenomenon but I guess he is positioning himself to run in 2012 against McCain.
I added a little more but not much!
Bloomburg/Clinton 08! lol
First Rush Limbaugh, Now Pat Buchanan: Republican Fear of Barack Obama Turns to Love of Hillary Clinton
My Response:
Oh yes, I remember when my parents tried using reverse psychology too. Try it on your kids and see if it works. My guess is yes if they are under 8 years old!
I can see that the Democratic Party is full of dip-shits in much the same way the Republican Party is.
In 00, and 04 we all saw how easily the uneducated were manipulated. Now we see it happening here within our Party.
Following based on rhetoric? By definition voting for Obama would be insanity. I would think that 00, and 04 would be such a lesson to everyone but yet people fail to learn from past mistakes. My opinion would be much different if the Country was in good standing and our Party was strong. It isn't and Party Leader Endorsements early on really helped him garner support.
Why does everyone want Obama to win? So the ball-less Democratic Leaders won't have to stand up and fight for Universal Healthcare. They don't want to jeopardize the massive amounts of money that is injected into campaigns across the Country. This goes for both Parties!
The Democratic Party needs a fighter to push a hard agenda through and Obama doesn't fit that bill. The Democratic Party needs leaders in Congress to stand up and fight. This is America and you have to fight and take what you want! You have to be resilient and focused! Just ask yourselves how much more competitive the US domestic Automotive Manufacturers would be now if Universal Healthcare would have been passed in 1993?
Don't you find it odd that the Democratic Party's Super Delegates are flocking to Obama? In all honesty, it has nothing to do with his skin color or the way he connects with crowds. IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HIS HEALTHCARE PLAN! A vote for Obama isn't a vote for CHANGE!
I would like to know where John Edward's voice is right now. Ask yourselves that question! It is amazing that he hasn't stepped up and helped explain this phenomenon but I guess he is positioning himself to run in 2012 against McCain.
I added a little more but not much!
Bloomburg/Clinton 08! lol
Well, Obama's opposition of Universal Healthcare explains exactly why he has gotten so much support across the nation. Both sides of the aisle can agree that opening up the pharmaceutical and insurance companies to negotiate volume discounts would jeopardize the gross amounts of money that is injected into both parties' campaigns across the country.
So in fact Obama is a "Uniter". He brings both parties together on this one issue.
The main reason why Hillary has been demonized since 1993/1994. She took on the establishment with approaches that were too progressive and was blamed for losing congress. When in fact, it was the Democratic Party's failure to stand behind her and explain what was going on. Exactly what is happening now.
The Government and Big Business Elitist don't care who wins the GE as long as it is not Kucinich, Edwards, or Hillary. They all know that this will be the beginning of some serious changes that need to be made at the highest levels. So rest assured Obama supporters, if this goes to the Convention you have nothing to worry about.
The exact reason Nader ran in 00, and is forming an exploratory committee now. He will run if Hillary is nominated.
Contrary to popular opinion, I fully subscribe to
Capitalism. I just don't subscribe to exploiting the general public unfairly by gouging them in the pocket books just for Greed.
Check out Adderall, an add drug that has been prescribed to millions of children and adults across the Nation. It is now nearing its patent expiration, so we have Doctors prescribing Vyvanse to replace Adderall. They are doing this when Vyvanse faired less well than Adderall in clinical trials. But since Vyvanse is being touted as less abusive, Doctors use this as a primary reason. Vyvanse works for a 24 hour period, Adderall comes in varied doses. Adderall can be prescribed for a 4 to 6 hour period or the XR lasts for upwards of 10-14 hours. Do some searches on this and the statistics will open some eyes.
Bottom line is capitalism is great for the general economy, but bad for the people when energy and pharmaceutical/insurance companies dictate politics.
Until America wakes up and sees things for what they are and pays attention for years on end instead of waking up near election time and basing decisions on popular opinion we will continue to see separations between the classes.
These are reasons why the Democratic Party is so divided and why there is never any beneficial change in Washington.
So in fact Obama is a "Uniter". He brings both parties together on this one issue.
The main reason why Hillary has been demonized since 1993/1994. She took on the establishment with approaches that were too progressive and was blamed for losing congress. When in fact, it was the Democratic Party's failure to stand behind her and explain what was going on. Exactly what is happening now.
The Government and Big Business Elitist don't care who wins the GE as long as it is not Kucinich, Edwards, or Hillary. They all know that this will be the beginning of some serious changes that need to be made at the highest levels. So rest assured Obama supporters, if this goes to the Convention you have nothing to worry about.
The exact reason Nader ran in 00, and is forming an exploratory committee now. He will run if Hillary is nominated.
Contrary to popular opinion, I fully subscribe to
Capitalism. I just don't subscribe to exploiting the general public unfairly by gouging them in the pocket books just for Greed.
Check out Adderall, an add drug that has been prescribed to millions of children and adults across the Nation. It is now nearing its patent expiration, so we have Doctors prescribing Vyvanse to replace Adderall. They are doing this when Vyvanse faired less well than Adderall in clinical trials. But since Vyvanse is being touted as less abusive, Doctors use this as a primary reason. Vyvanse works for a 24 hour period, Adderall comes in varied doses. Adderall can be prescribed for a 4 to 6 hour period or the XR lasts for upwards of 10-14 hours. Do some searches on this and the statistics will open some eyes.
Bottom line is capitalism is great for the general economy, but bad for the people when energy and pharmaceutical/insurance companies dictate politics.
Until America wakes up and sees things for what they are and pays attention for years on end instead of waking up near election time and basing decisions on popular opinion we will continue to see separations between the classes.
These are reasons why the Democratic Party is so divided and why there is never any beneficial change in Washington.
Which health care plan do you all support?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/harry_louise_again.html
Just wondering, I know John Edwards and Hillary were apart on many things, but this was not one of them.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/harry_louise_again.html
Just wondering, I know John Edwards and Hillary were apart on many things, but this was not one of them.
It isn't about race or gender with me. It is about who I think is ready, who can appoint the right people, and who can win the GE. My opinion would most likely be different if we had a current Democratic Administration and was a smooth transition, but rest assured they will not do us any favors.
Another thing to think about. I was afraid to make these connections in any of my earlier posts but I did some searches and found it had already been written about. I assume they are still alive, so I will risk it. (lol)
For those of you that have been reading my posts you will know that I have been comparing Obama’s campaign to that of W. I found this among a number of other things that sort of substantiates my opinions.
I found:
Financial Times
Rove's advice for Obama
By Edward Luce in Washington
Published: December 3 2007 02:00
Barack Obama should remove the gloves and start "scrapping and fighting" with Hillary Clinton if he is to have any chance of winning the Democratic nomination, writes Karl Rove in today's Financial Times.
Mr Rove, George W. Bush's electoral maestro, who is credited with obliterating the campaign strategies of opponents Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, said Mr Obama was acting "too pure and high minded" to wrest the nomination from Mrs Clinton, whom many believe is closely following Mr Rove's ruthless model of how to win elections. "Not that you [Mr Obama] have asked for advice, but here it is anyway," Mr Rove writes. "Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise. In some debates you don't even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look like you're afraid of her."
Mr Rove's advice comes four weeks before the first nominating caucus in Iowa, where Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton have been fighting an increasingly close contest. A Des Moines registered poll at the weekend put Mr Obama as the first choice of 28 per cent of likely participants in the caucus, compared with Mrs Clinton at 25 per cent. This mirrors the breakthrough of Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, who has pushed aside former frontrunners in the Republican race to lead with 29 per cent in his party's contest.
Nationally, Mrs Clinton maintains a substantial but diminishing lead.
Mr Rove, who resigned from his role as Mr Bush's senior White House adviser in August, advises Mr Obama to focus on fears among Democrats that Mrs Clinton cannot win a general election and would act as a "drag on the ticket".
"You are running out of time," he writes. "Remind primary voters these shortcomings will hurt Democratic chances."
Mr Rove also criticises Mr Obama for failing to specify more clearly who he is and what he stands for: "If she wins the nomination, it will be because her competitors - namely you - were weak when you confronted her."
I have been saying this for a long time now. The only way the Republicans can beat the Democrats in 08 GE is if they don't have to run against Hillary and a united Democratic Party. (They know Ohio and Arkansas will fall to Hillary leaving Florida the only real toss up, the southwestern states will also be in play because of the Hispanic vote)
At first, I thought it was Daschle’s influence that was primarily responsible for the corn-belt states giving Obama the support they did. I am not entirely sold on that now, he is likely being given credit because more in state pressure from the GOP to support Obama is more likely. They are red states you know.
Also, think about what a few extremely well funded young republicans could do at the college level. This is a very scary thought!
I really am not trying to build up any conspiracy theories here, but from what I found out tonight I could probably have taken this further and further. The thing is Rove has been out of sight-out of mind since August now. As it stands, Rove will go down in history as getting W. elected for two terms leaving the worst possible legacy of any POTUS. In addition, he could be responsible for handing over congress too. Rest assured though, he has a plan to return the party to leadership.
Is it possible he is behind Obama?
Is there any way to find out if a large number of Republicans voted for one of our candidates in some of these low turn out Caucus States?
Who these pollsters are really calling?
Who the reporters where that where asking the questions that were characterized as racial?
Who exposed John Edwards haircut costs?
The moral of the story, from all of my posts is manipulation and how the effects play vital roles in election campaigns.
Another thing to think about. I was afraid to make these connections in any of my earlier posts but I did some searches and found it had already been written about. I assume they are still alive, so I will risk it. (lol)
For those of you that have been reading my posts you will know that I have been comparing Obama’s campaign to that of W. I found this among a number of other things that sort of substantiates my opinions.
I found:
Financial Times
Rove's advice for Obama
By Edward Luce in Washington
Published: December 3 2007 02:00
Barack Obama should remove the gloves and start "scrapping and fighting" with Hillary Clinton if he is to have any chance of winning the Democratic nomination, writes Karl Rove in today's Financial Times.
Mr Rove, George W. Bush's electoral maestro, who is credited with obliterating the campaign strategies of opponents Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, said Mr Obama was acting "too pure and high minded" to wrest the nomination from Mrs Clinton, whom many believe is closely following Mr Rove's ruthless model of how to win elections. "Not that you [Mr Obama] have asked for advice, but here it is anyway," Mr Rove writes. "Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise. In some debates you don't even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look like you're afraid of her."
Mr Rove's advice comes four weeks before the first nominating caucus in Iowa, where Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton have been fighting an increasingly close contest. A Des Moines registered poll at the weekend put Mr Obama as the first choice of 28 per cent of likely participants in the caucus, compared with Mrs Clinton at 25 per cent. This mirrors the breakthrough of Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, who has pushed aside former frontrunners in the Republican race to lead with 29 per cent in his party's contest.
Nationally, Mrs Clinton maintains a substantial but diminishing lead.
Mr Rove, who resigned from his role as Mr Bush's senior White House adviser in August, advises Mr Obama to focus on fears among Democrats that Mrs Clinton cannot win a general election and would act as a "drag on the ticket".
"You are running out of time," he writes. "Remind primary voters these shortcomings will hurt Democratic chances."
Mr Rove also criticises Mr Obama for failing to specify more clearly who he is and what he stands for: "If she wins the nomination, it will be because her competitors - namely you - were weak when you confronted her."
I have been saying this for a long time now. The only way the Republicans can beat the Democrats in 08 GE is if they don't have to run against Hillary and a united Democratic Party. (They know Ohio and Arkansas will fall to Hillary leaving Florida the only real toss up, the southwestern states will also be in play because of the Hispanic vote)
At first, I thought it was Daschle’s influence that was primarily responsible for the corn-belt states giving Obama the support they did. I am not entirely sold on that now, he is likely being given credit because more in state pressure from the GOP to support Obama is more likely. They are red states you know.
Also, think about what a few extremely well funded young republicans could do at the college level. This is a very scary thought!
I really am not trying to build up any conspiracy theories here, but from what I found out tonight I could probably have taken this further and further. The thing is Rove has been out of sight-out of mind since August now. As it stands, Rove will go down in history as getting W. elected for two terms leaving the worst possible legacy of any POTUS. In addition, he could be responsible for handing over congress too. Rest assured though, he has a plan to return the party to leadership.
Is it possible he is behind Obama?
Is there any way to find out if a large number of Republicans voted for one of our candidates in some of these low turn out Caucus States?
Who these pollsters are really calling?
Who the reporters where that where asking the questions that were characterized as racial?
Who exposed John Edwards haircut costs?
The moral of the story, from all of my posts is manipulation and how the effects play vital roles in election campaigns.
So many (although different in views) chose Bush in 00/04 in the same manner as many are doing now. Inspiration is great, talk about change is great, but it is very hard to say you are against the establishment when the Kennedy's are at your back, and Daschle is orchestrating and playing out Rove's old used up strategy. Apparently this is the new name for recycled Rove strategy! “Taking on the Establishment”
When we have people base their decision on a core convictional attachment that is a little different. A little different I would like to stress. Just because Obama is Black, Black people have core convictional attachment, or just like those that feel so strongly against abortion on the other side. It is the inability to view the bigger picture, the individual connection that truly connects the Democrats to the GOP. WE SHOULD FIGHT THIS!
When we have people jumping on to someone because of what they say that is totally different. They are sheep! We saw this in 00, 04, and now in 08. What did you call the people that voted W. in during the GEs' of 00 and 04?
I have heard Obama speak now about 15 times over the past 6 days and I will have to say that it really seems like the same orchestrated scene. The first couple times I thought it was awesome, but the more I do hear him, everything in his delivery is for effect. He does have serious problems when sitting side by side with Hillary so don't plan on seeing him take her up on the debates she wants. Daschle won't allow it.
When Obama is talking about taking on the Establishment, he himself is being taken advantage of. Don’t think for one minute that Tom Daschle doesn’t have a self-serving reason for pushing Obama in right now. He was the one that was instrumental in garnering the endorsements from most of the Caucus state’s including MO, Kansas, N/S Dakota, Arizona, etc etc.
Earlier on MSNBC Kerry was interviewed and really playing this up and how Obama was so electable in the GE. The numbers are very miss-leading, Obama is getting a majority of State’s that won’t turn Blue even if you choked them, and the Blue one’s he is getting are long standing Blue States. Right now the only real legitimate shot at a red state is Arkansas; check out that for a surprise! Hillary was about 2000 short of taking more total votes than all GOP candidates combined (as of 88%in). Hillary had almost 300,000 more votes than McCain in Florida without any of our candidates campaigning there. If she chooses Bayh, they not only put Indiana in contention but Ohio as well.
Anyways, some of us can see what is happening here. Daschle, Kerry, and Kennedy are thinking they may be able to put their mark on history through Obama, in much the same way Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Big Oil did with W; but then what else can we expect when we consistently vote for in-experienced Presidents that have to rely on advisors?
Anyways, hopefully they act quick and make their mark, because that is exactly what will enable the GOP to rebound.
Really, think about it. Who do you think will effectively push policy? Hillary/Bayh or Obama/ Daschle/ Kennedy/ Kerry/ etc.?
Think about our Party just not your "emotions" please.
As bad as Bush is leaving things, it is sad that people need an inspirational leader. They should already be inspired, pissed, and want to make change!
Party figureheads don't work!
What will happen to our Party!
By the way, have you noticed how bitter Kerry seems to be?
When we have people base their decision on a core convictional attachment that is a little different. A little different I would like to stress. Just because Obama is Black, Black people have core convictional attachment, or just like those that feel so strongly against abortion on the other side. It is the inability to view the bigger picture, the individual connection that truly connects the Democrats to the GOP. WE SHOULD FIGHT THIS!
When we have people jumping on to someone because of what they say that is totally different. They are sheep! We saw this in 00, 04, and now in 08. What did you call the people that voted W. in during the GEs' of 00 and 04?
I have heard Obama speak now about 15 times over the past 6 days and I will have to say that it really seems like the same orchestrated scene. The first couple times I thought it was awesome, but the more I do hear him, everything in his delivery is for effect. He does have serious problems when sitting side by side with Hillary so don't plan on seeing him take her up on the debates she wants. Daschle won't allow it.
When Obama is talking about taking on the Establishment, he himself is being taken advantage of. Don’t think for one minute that Tom Daschle doesn’t have a self-serving reason for pushing Obama in right now. He was the one that was instrumental in garnering the endorsements from most of the Caucus state’s including MO, Kansas, N/S Dakota, Arizona, etc etc.
Earlier on MSNBC Kerry was interviewed and really playing this up and how Obama was so electable in the GE. The numbers are very miss-leading, Obama is getting a majority of State’s that won’t turn Blue even if you choked them, and the Blue one’s he is getting are long standing Blue States. Right now the only real legitimate shot at a red state is Arkansas; check out that for a surprise! Hillary was about 2000 short of taking more total votes than all GOP candidates combined (as of 88%in). Hillary had almost 300,000 more votes than McCain in Florida without any of our candidates campaigning there. If she chooses Bayh, they not only put Indiana in contention but Ohio as well.
Anyways, some of us can see what is happening here. Daschle, Kerry, and Kennedy are thinking they may be able to put their mark on history through Obama, in much the same way Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Big Oil did with W; but then what else can we expect when we consistently vote for in-experienced Presidents that have to rely on advisors?
Anyways, hopefully they act quick and make their mark, because that is exactly what will enable the GOP to rebound.
Really, think about it. Who do you think will effectively push policy? Hillary/Bayh or Obama/ Daschle/ Kennedy/ Kerry/ etc.?
Think about our Party just not your "emotions" please.
As bad as Bush is leaving things, it is sad that people need an inspirational leader. They should already be inspired, pissed, and want to make change!
Party figureheads don't work!
What will happen to our Party!
By the way, have you noticed how bitter Kerry seems to be?
Does anyone think Obama will agree to the weekly debates with Hillary?
Page 1 of 2
| Next
Posts By Month
Posts